Research productivity of Australian accounting academics

In recent decades, substantial changes have impacted the global academy, such as the increasing use of key performance metrics for academics. This study provides recent evidence of Australian accounting academics’ performance in publishing in A/A* journals during the period 2010–2018. We find that the top 25 percent of Australian academics produce approximately 60 percent of published journal articles through an analysis of the A/A* Australian Business Deans′ Council (ABDC) accounting journal listing. The majority of published Australian co‐authored research output in the sample is in A ranked journals (80 percent), with only 20 percent observed in A* ranked journals.     

Exploring corporate governance research in accounting journals through latent semantic and topic analyses

The literature on corporate governance (CG) has been expanding at an unprecedented rate since major corporate scandals surfaced, such as Enron, WorldCom, and HealthSouth. Corresponding with accounting's important role in CG, accounting scholars increasingly have investigated CG in recent years, so the body of literature is growing. Although previous attempts have been made to summarize extant literature on CG via reviews, none of these attempts has utilized recent developments in text analyses and natural language processing. This study uses latent semantic and topic analyses to address this research gap by analysing abstracts from 1,399 articles in all accounting journals that the Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) has rated A and A*. The ABDC journal list is widely recognized as a journal‐quality indicator across many universities worldwide. The analyses revealed 10 distinct research topics on CG in the ABDC's top accounting journals. The results presented include the five most representative articles for each topic, as distinguished by topic scores. This study carries important practice and policy implications, as it reveals major research streams and exhibits how researchers respond to various CG problems.     

Co‐authorship Network Analysis in the Accounting Discipline

The purpose of this study is to explore co‐authorship structures in the accounting discipline through social network analysis. For this purpose, we hand‐collected the authorship data of 10 863 papers published in 22 accounting journals listed on the Web of Science for the period 2000–2016. The findings indicate that the proportion of multi‐author papers has increased over time while the trend away from sole authorship has continued. The network indicators and visualisations reflect that accounting research manifests a small‐world property. Despite the large network size, a high number of ties among nodes, the size of giant components and a high clustering coefficient all support this inference. We hope that emphasis on collaboration metrics motivates and encourages researchers to engage with other scholars both locally and abroad. Furthermore, the development of research networks in the analysis period indicates that the trend is moving towards more collaboration; thus, being part of a team or team‐making is key to integration with other scholars.     

Ranking accounting journals using dissertation citation analysis: A research note

Prior literature on accounting journal rankings has provided different journal lists depending on the type of examination (citations- vs. survey-based) and the choice of journals covered. A recent study by Bonner, Hesford, Van der Stede, and Young (2006) [Bonner, S., Hesford, A., Van der Stede, W. A., & Young, M. S. (2006). The most influential journals in academic accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31(7), 663–685] documents disproportionately more citations in the financial accounting area, suggesting a financial accounting bias in the accounting literature. We use citations from accounting dissertations completed during 1999–2003 to provide a ranking of accounting journals. The database allows us to assess the research interests of new accounting scholars and the literature sources they draw from. Another innovation is our ranking of accounting journals based on specialty areas (auditing, financial, managerial, tax, systems, and other) and research methods (archival, experimental, modeling, survey, and other). To mitigate the financial accounting bias documented by Bonner et al. (2006), we derive a ranking metric by scaling (normalizing) the journal citations by the number of dissertations within each specialty area and research method. Overall, the top journals are, JAR, AOS, TAR, and JAE. We also provide evidence that top journal rankings do vary by specialty area as well as by research methods.     

Author Affiliation Index, finance journal ranking, and the pattern of authorship

In this paper we use a new method to rank finance journals and study the pattern of authorship/co-authorship across journals. Defined as the ratio of articles authored by faculty at the world's top 80 finance programs to the total number of articles by all authors, the Author Affiliation Index is a cost-effective and intuitively easy-to-understand approach to journal rankings. Forty-one finance journals are ranked according to this index. If properly constructed, the Author Affiliation Index provides an easy and credible way to supplement the existing journal ranking methods. Our ranking system reveals the journal–researcher clientele, and we find that collaboration (co-authoring) between faculty within elite programs exists only in top-tier and near-top-tier journals. Publications in lower-tier journals by researchers of elite programs are driven by their co-authors. Collaboration between faculty in elite and non-elite programs, however, is more prevalent than that within elite programs across all tiers of journals. Co-authorship among top 80 programs, nevertheless, is more common in top-tier journals, while co-authorship between top 80 and other programs is more dominant in lower-ranked journals.     

Productivity in Top‐10 Academic Accounting Journals by Researchers at Canadian Universities at the Start of the 21st Century

We assess the research publication productivity of Canadian‐based accounting researchers in highly ranked accounting journals for the 2001–13 period. Our research provides important benchmarks for use by individual researchers and universities for matters such as promotion and tenure decisions. For example, each Canadian‐based faculty member had approximately 0.50 of a weighted article for the 13‐year period, and 45 percent of all accounting faculty members published at least once in a top‐10 accounting journal. We also provide an overview of the type of research being published by Canadian‐based researchers in each of the top‐10 journals (financial accounting, managerial, audit, tax or other) and we assess how productivity at top‐10 journals has changed over time. In supplemental analysis, we compare and contrast the productivity of the 15 male and 15 female academics that publish most in top‐10 accounting journals to assess the breadth of outlets being used beyond top‐10 outlets (including FT 45 journals, accounting journals ranked “A”, “B”, and “non‐A/B”; non‐accounting peer‐reviewed journals, non‐peer‐reviewed outlets). The supplemental analysis also helps to shed light on the finding from this paper, and prior research, that women are less likely to be represented on lists of those with most publications in highly ranked accounting journals, by comparing the two groups of researchers across a variety of institutional and other factors.     

Accounting research in the Asia–Pacific region: an update

We provide an updated study of accounting research in the Asia–Pacific region using the publication records of six premier accounting journals (top-6) from 1991 to 2010, and augment the findings with the broader range of publications from an additional twenty accounting journals during the same period. Overall, the higher education institutions (HEIs) in the region produced 7.7 and 11.1 % of the total weighted number of articles (wt-articles) in the top-6 and 20 accounting journals. Interestingly, HEIs in the region exhibit a trend toward an increase in the yearly wt-articles and relative percentage of the total. The general performance of the accounting programs in the region is persistent during 1991–2010. The Asia–Pacific accounting programs are particularly successful in placing publications in journals such as Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting. The accounting research productivity, however, is dominated by select institutions in Australia, Hong Kong, New Zealand, and Singapore. Several institutions in these four countries/areas maintain a consistently high ranking. In terms of top-6 accounting journal publications, the top five institutions are the University of New South Wales, Nanyang Technological University, the University of Melbourne, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, and Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. The percentage share of the research output among the top five institutions is high, suggesting that a high hurdle is set for up-and-coming institutions to move up the rankings.     

12 years of integrated reporting: A review of research

Stakeholders’ demand for forward-looking corporate reporting that includes both financial and non-financial stories opened the path for the evolution of a new form of reporting known as integrated reporting (IR). The purpose of this paper is to review the articles on IR published by the accounting, finance and management journals on the Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) list of journals from 2009 to 2020. Our study reviews 210 articles on IR published by 64 journals. The findings reveal that the IR research spectrum has broadened over time and now includes more research into IR in practice compared with earlier research, which was mostly normative.     

Using Google Scholar citations to rank accounting programs: a global perspective

We conduct an assessment on accounting program research performance based on Google Scholar citations for all articles from a set of 23 quality accounting journals during 1991–2010. Our work is a new approach in accounting by directly measuring the impact of the faculty research in accounting programs. We find that the top-5 accounting programs are the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Chicago, Stanford University, the University of Michigan, and Harvard University. These top programs produce a large number of high impact articles. In addition, using the mean citations from all articles in a journal, we find that the Review of Accounting Studies (RAST) is a top-5 journal, replacing Contemporary Accounting Research (CAR).     

The most influential journals in academic accounting

In this article we summarize the findings of articles that have ranked academic accounting journals, as well as articles that provide other bases for considering journal quality. Results indicate that five journals—Accounting, Organizations and Society, Contemporary Accounting Research, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Journal of Accounting Research, and The Accounting Review—rank consistently as the top journals in the field. However, these five journals differ substantially as to the numbers of articles they publish overall as well as the proportions of articles that are related to the various specialty areas of accounting. Further, the relative proportions of articles by area do not correspond to the numbers of individuals working in the specialty areas. Financial accounting articles appear in disproportionately high numbers for all journals except Accounting, Organizations and Society, whereas management accounting articles appear in disproportionately low numbers for all journals except Accounting, Organizations and Society. In all journals, systems and tax articles also appear to be disproportionately low vis-à-vis the numbers of individuals working in these areas. Auditing receives fairly even exposure across journals and vis-à-vis individuals in the area, except in the Journal of Accounting and Economics.     

Global ranking of accounting programmes and the elite effect in accounting research

We provide a global ranking of accounting research and examine the elite degree and elite affiliation effect. Based on 24 accounting journals during the period 1991–2005, the top 5 most productive countries in accounting research are in the following order: the USA, the UK, Australia, Canada and Hong Kong. We find a significant elite degree effect, indicating that authors who graduated from elite accounting programmes have a disproportionate share of publications in top‐notch journals. The same conclusion is also supported by the elite affiliation effect in which leading accounting journals have higher concentration of authors who are affiliated with elite institutions.     

The Ultimate Irrelevance Proposition in Finance?

I survey 457 published papers in top finance journals across two decades to assess whether these papers misuse tests of significance. More than 80% of published studies are diligent about distinguishing between statistical and economic significance and quantifying and interpreting the economic magnitudes of the statistical relationships they measure. Yet, only 10% of these acknowledge limits to the power of their tests and even fewer do anything about them. Recent demographic trends in publishing, such as larger co‐author teams and increased participation by non‐North American scholars, women, and those outside the top finance departments are not associated with these outcomes.     

Productivity in “Top‐Ten” Academic Accounting Journals by Researchers at Canadian Universities*

We examine the research productivity of academic accountants at Canadian universities for the 11‐year period 1990‐2000. Our analysis is based on the “top‐ten” ranked refereed journals in accounting, auditing, and taxation, as documented by Brown and Huefner (1994). We first provide an overview of the importance of publishing in highly ranked accounting journals for individual academics, departments, and business faculties. We then provide details of the proportion of articles published in each of these journals by academics from Canadian universities; the type of research published in each journal (auditing, financial accounting, managerial accounting, and taxation); and details of editorial board service. Our results indicate that even at the most productive Canadian university (in terms of “top‐ten” publications), faculty members publish (on average) approximately one article every seven years. Six Canadian universities have faculty members with, on average, more than one article in “top‐ten” journals every 10 years. We also provide results of analyses that rank each Canadian university, after controlling for the relative quality of each journal, using impact factors published by the Social Science Citation Index. In addition, statistics are provided with regard to the 15 most productive researchers, in terms of “top‐ten” publications, in the 11‐year period. Finally, in conjunction with the 25th anniversary of the Canadian Academic Accounting Association, we examine the productivity of academic accountants at Canadian universities over the past 25 years by combining our results with those reported by Richardson and Williams (1990).     

Accounting Ph.D. program graduates: affiliation performance and publication performance

We examine the affiliation performance and publication performance of 1991–1997 accounting Ph.D. graduates. We define affiliation performance as whether or not an individual is employed at a school with an accounting program ranked by Trieschmann et al. (Academy of Management Journal 43:1130–1141, 2000). We define publication performance in two ways, whether or not the Ph.D. graduate published in at least one of: (1) three premier accounting journals, and (2) a broader set of eight accounting journals. We examine the influence of the institutional status (private versus public) of the graduating institution on both affiliation performance and publication performance. We examine the institutional status both unconditionally and conditionally on four article types published in three premier journals: (1) articles from Ph.D. dissertations, (2) co-authored articles with degree-school faculty, (3) co-authored articles with degree-school Ph.D. students, and (4) co-authored articles with affiliated faculty. We show that accounting graduates of private schools are more likely to be affiliated with higher ranked schools, but they are not more likely to publish in the premier journals or the broader set of eight journals.

Food for Thought on the ABS Academic Journal Quality Guide

This paper discusses issues relating to the use of the Association of Business Schools' (ABS) Academic Journal Quality Guide within UK business schools. It also looks at several specific issues raised by the Chair of the British Accounting Association/British Accounting and Finance Association regarding the ratings for top international journals, and for accounting education and accounting history journals. The increasing use of this guide by business school deans/heads as a tool for staffing and research resource allocation has significant implications both for individuals and specialist areas of research.     

Accounting and Finance at forty: a retrospective evaluation

Accounting and Finance has evolved from a news bulletin to a full-grown refereed academic journal that has published papers written by authors from Australia, New Zealand, the United States of America, Canada, Europe and Asia. The Journal published its 41^st volume in 2001 and that anniversary issue coincides with the beginning of the new millennium. As part of the celebration of this important milestone, this article reviews the Journal's evolution, the variety of papers published and the Journal's impact on accounting and finance research in the Asia Pacific region. Data for 394 papers published in the Journal by 570 authors are analysed. I find that the distribution of institutions and authors that have published in the Journal is highly skewed, with the top five (11) institutions accounting for 35 per cent (51 per cent) of the published papers in the Journal. Similarly, 8 per cent of the authors have published 26 per cent of the articles in the Journal. Analysis of the citation pattern indicates that Accounting and Finance does not have much impact on research published in the Asia Pacific region, with the Journal accounting for only 1.06 per cent of all citations in the selected Asia Pacific journals. Sub-period analysis indicates that not even the establishment of the editorial board in the latter half of the 1990s has helped improve the impact of the Journal on research published in the Asia Pacific region. However, compared with other Asia-Pacific journals, Accounting and Finance has the strongest impact on publications in the selected journals. The impact is even stronger in the latter half of the 1990s. Also, the impact of Accounting and Finance on the more recent journals in the Asia Pacific region is stronger than that of the other more established journals.     

The “real” cultural significance of accounts

Typically, accounting is portrayed as a passive information service, dedicated to faithfully reporting on economic reality. This paper, in contrast, investigates the re-presentional aspects of accounting, and the part it plays as a symbolic, cultural and hegemonic force, in struggles over the distribution of social income. The issues are examined empirically through the publishing patterns of the Journal of Accountancy, Accounting Review, and Fortune magazine between 1960 and 1973. Chronicling the changes in accounting literature is not our primary concern however. Rather, this work explores the relationships between accounting discourses and the conditions of social conflict in which these discourses are embedded. The evidence suggests that: different accounting journals specialize in different rhetorical functions; that these functions are discharged in harmony with other media and cultural forces (data on Fortune's discursive practices is provided for comparison); and that, over time, the discursive roles of accounting journals change with the evolving hegemonic climate. This paper contends that viewing accounting literature as disinterested inquiry or rigorous scholarship understates the social origins of research. Instead, we suggest that discursive accounting practices are more productively regarded as ideological weapons for participating in conflicts over the distribution of social wealth.     

Factors Influencing the Presence of Ethics and CSR Stand-alone Courses in the Accounting Masters Curricula: An International Study

Abstract

This paper provides a web-content analysis of the curriculum and subjects of the top accounting and auditing masters identified in the Eduniversal 2012–2013 ratings of the best business schools in the world. The main aim of this study is to analyze the influence exerted by different factors on the extent to which accounting programs are incorporating ethics and corporate social responsibility (CSR) stand-alone courses. The findings of this study do not offer a very optimistic outlook on the extent to which the accounting and auditing top masters ranked by the Eduniversal ratings are offering stand-alone courses related to ethics and CSR. Also, the findings suggest that the presence of ethics and CSR stand-alone subjects in the accounting and auditing masters analyzed is partially explained by the size and the cultural influence exerted by the geographical location.     

EXAMINING THE PRACTICAL RELEVANCE OF PUBLIC SECTOR MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING RESEARCH

Concerns exist that practical relevance is becoming devalued as accounting scholars respond to signals about what sort of research ‘counts’. We categorize public sector management accounting papers in six leading journals according to two criteria: the practical orientation of the research objective(s), and whether the conclusions communicate issues of practical relevance. The findings reveal that most of the papers are directed towards understanding or critiquing the use of management accounting techniques, while other practically oriented research objectives are largely absent. Although half of the papers identify practical research implications, few suggest guidelines for practice. Reflections are offered on the role of leading journals in shaping how practical relevance is valued in accounting research.